On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 18 December 2012 00:53, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >>> On 17 December 2012 14:16, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> >>> wrote: >>>> I also wonder if pg_basebackup should >>>> include *all* timeline history files in the backup, not just the latest one >>>> strictly required to restore. >> >>> Why? the timeline history file includes the previous timelines already. >> >> The original intention was that the WAL archive might contain multiple >> timeline files corresponding to various experimental recovery attempts; >> furthermore, such files might be hand-annotated (that's why there's a >> comment provision). So they would be at least as valuable from an >> archival standpoint as the WAL files proper. I think we ought to just >> copy all of them, period. Anything less is penny-wise and >> pound-foolish. > > What I'm saying is that the new history file is created from the old > one, so the latest file includes all the history as a direct copy. The > only thing new is one line of information.
The timeline history file includes only ancestor timelines history. So the latest one might not include all the history. Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
